Open main menu

Commons:秀逸な画像の推薦

概要Edit

推薦にあたってEdit

推薦者のためのガイドラインEdit

まずはじめに、『秀逸な画像ガイドライン』、『画像のガイドライン』をお読みください。

ここでは推薦画像の評価を受ける・する際の必要事項を要約して紹介します。

  • 解像度 - 200万ピクセル以下の写真画像は、特別な理由が無い限り却下されます。1,600 x 1,200 ピクセル(1.92メガピクセル)は200万ピクセルには届いていない事にご注意ください。
コモンズに置かれた画像は一般的なPCモニターのみで閲覧されるとは限らず、プリントアウトや高解像度モニターで表示される可能性もあります。将来的にもどのような機器が用いられるようになるかは誰にも予想出来ないので、推薦画像が可能な限り高い解像度を保っている事は重要な事なのです。
  • スキャン画像 - 公式な方針ではありませんが、Help:スキャニングページで各種様々な画像を準備するための有用なアドバイスが提供されています。
  • フォーカス - 通常、重要な被写体は全て焦点が合っていなければいけません。
  • 前景と背景 - 前景や背景に主題ではない物が写り込むと、それは“余計なもの”になり得ます。前景にある物が主題の重要な部分を隠していないか、背景にあるものが構図を損ねていないか(例:後ろの街灯が人物の頭の上から生えているように見える、等)を確認しましょう。
  • 全体品質 - 推薦される画像には高い技術品質が要求されます。
  • デジタル補正 - 見る人を欺いてはいけません。写真画像のキズ・ホコリ等を修正する、良い編集、故意に人を騙す目的でない限り、デジタル補正は一般的に歓迎されます。例を挙げると、色合い/露出補正、シャープ/ボカシ、遠近感歪み補正、トリミング(切り取り)等がこれにあたります。背景に写り込んだ余計な物を取り除く等のさらに大がかりな修正は、{{Retouched picture}}テンプレートを画像ページへ貼付け、修正した旨を記述しましょう。記述漏れや記述ミスがある等、主題を不正確に見せる編集は決して受け入れられません。
  • 価値 - 『全ての画像の中でも特に際立ち、最も価値のある画像』が我々の大きな目標です。秀逸な画像はそれぞれの分野の中でも別格でなけらばならず、故に次の点に留意して下さい。
    • たいていの夕日は美しく見えますが、そういう画像のほとんどは他の夕日画像と大差ありません。
    • 夜景は美しいですが、普通は日中に撮影された写真の方がより詳細を見せてくれます。
    • 必ずしも『美しさに価値がある』わけではありません。

技術的側面では露出『構図』『動感表現』被写界深度等を見ます。

  • 露出とはシャッタースピードと絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、適切なトーンカーブが見せる陰影〜ハイライトが有用なディティールを描写します。これをラティチュード(露光寛容度)と言い、このラティチュードの陰影〜ハイライトの領域内において、画像を暗め、中庸、明るめに作る事が出来ますが、デジタルカメラ及びデジタル画像はこのラティチュードの範囲がフィルムに比べて狭いです。ディティールの欠損した影部分は必ずしも「悪い」わけではなく、実際にその様な効果が望ましい場合(部分)もあります。ただしディティールの欠損したハイライト部分が大きく面積を占めるのは良くありません。
  • 構図とは画像画面内での各要素の配置の事を言います。“三分割法”は構図作成には良い方法で、美術学校でも教えられています。まず、画像に水平線と垂直線をそれぞれ2本引き、画像を水平・垂直方向とも3分割します。主題を中央に配置するとたいていは画面に面白味を欠き、水平線と垂直線が交差する4つの交点の内どれか1つに主題を置いた方が良い画面になるでしょう。地平線は画面を半分に切ってしまうので、通常は地平線を中央に配置するべきではありません。上寄り、若しくは下寄りに配置させる方が良いでしょう。主たる考え方としては空間を上手に使い、躍動感・臨場感のある画面を作るという事です。
  • 動感表現 - ここでは被写体の「動き」を表現する手法を紹介します。動きのある被写体は止まって見えるか、もしくはブレて写りますが、これらはどちらの方が良いとは必ずしも言えず、どのような表現意図を持っているかによります。「動感」は主題と共に写り込んでいる他の背景等との関係で表現されます。例えばレーシングカーの撮影。車と背景とが共に止まって見えては、見る側にスピード感は伝わってきません。 なので撮影手法によって車は画面内で止まっているように写り、かつ背景をブレさせることでスピード感が表現され、このような手法を「パンニング(流し撮り)」と呼びます。一方で、背景と共に止まって撮られた高く跳躍したバスケットボール選手は、これは決定的瞬間の「不自然」なポーズになり、これも良い写真になり得るでしょう。
  • 被写界深度(DOF)とは主題の前側から後ろ側までのフォーカスエリアの事を言います。被写界深度は全ての画像で明解な意図のもと選択され、深い、または浅い被写界深度は、画像に品質を与えもし、また損なわせもします。浅い被写界深度は、主題を他の被写体から切り離し、見せたい被写体に注目を集めることが出来ます。深い被写界深度は空間を強調させる事が出来ます。広角(短焦点)レンズは深い被写界深度、逆に望遠(長焦点)レンズは浅い被写界深度が得られる傾向があります。また絞りを絞り込むと被写界深度は深く、解放すると浅い被写界深度が得られます。

グラフィック要素では形状、ボリューム、色、テクスチャー、遠近感、バランス、比率 等を見ます。

  • 形状とは主題に対する輪郭線、及び形状を言います。
  • ボリュームとは主題の立体感に対する品質を言います。立体感は横からのライティングで表現出来、反対に正面からのライティングは被写体を平坦に見せる傾向があり、不向きとされています。自然光の中でベストな光を得るには、早朝か、もしくは夕方の日の光が良いでしょう。
  • は大変重要で、強すぎる色合いは好ましくありません。
  • テクスチャーとは主題の表面材質の描写性に於ける品質を言います。表面材質は横からのライティングにより強調され、手に触れて伝わるかのような質感を与えます。
  • 遠近感とは、画像の画面内若しくは外にある消失点で繋がる放射状の直線、これに沿った形で現れる「角度」により表現されます。
  • バランスでは画像の画面内での重心が左右均衡か、若しくは片方に寄る等適切な配置が成されているかを見ます。
  • 比率では画面の大きさに対する被写体の大きさを見ます。一般的に、小さな被写体は小さく写真に表現してしまう傾向にありますが、相応しい撮影手法により小さな被写体を実寸とは逆に大きく見せる事が可能です。例えば、小さな花を大きな山よりも大きく見る事が出来ます。この手法を指して「倒置法」と呼びます。
主題の全ての要素を画像に盛込む必要はありません。多くの写真はそれぞれの個性で評価出来ます。すなわち、画像の色やテクスチャー等々により判断出来ます。
  • 『象徴性か妥当性か』 ー 『秀逸な画像』ではしばしばこのようなテーマで意見論争が起こる傾向にあります。技術的・品質的には出来の悪い写真でも極めて撮影困難な被写体を捉えた写真は、凡庸な被写体を写した品質的に良い写真よりも評価されます。もちろん撮影困難な被写体を写し、かつ品質も良い写真は極めて価値の高い写真と言えます。
画像は時に撮影者と評価者、若しくはどちらか片方の文化的な偏りが見られます。画像の意図は画像そのものの文化的背景により評価されるべきであり、評価者の文化的背景に依存してはいけません。イメージは人に語りかけ、そして慈しみ、怒り、拒絶、幸せ、悲しみ等の感情を喚起させる力を持っています。良い写真から与えられる心地よさには限りがありません。


画像のガイドラインを事前に読めば、あなたの推薦が成就する可能性を最大限に引き伸ばしてくれるでしょう。

新規推薦Edit

推薦に値する価値があると考えられる画像を作った、または見つけたならば、その画像に適切な説明ライセンスが与えられているかを確認し、以下に従ってください。

ステップ1:画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックス内の文字列の後にコピー&ペースト、正しく Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg と記入されているかを確認し、続いて『作品を推薦』ボタンをクリックします。


ステップ2:ページ編集画面上にある指示に従い必要箇所を付記、ページを保存してください。

ステップ3:ステップ2で作成したページへのリンクをFeatured picture candidates/candidate listへ手動で挿入します。ページ編集をクリックし、候補リスト最上部に以下の書式で推薦画像へのリンクを加えます。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg}}

投票Edit

投票には以下のテンプレートを使用します:

  • {{支持}}または{{Support}} (  Support  Support),
  • {{反対}}または{{Oppose}} (  Oppose  Oppose),
  • {{中立}}または{{Neutral}} (  Neutral  Neutral),
  • {{コメント}}または{{Comment}} (  Comment  Comment),
  • 情報:{{Info}} (  Info),
  • 質問:{{Question}} (  Question).

テンプレート{{FPX|理由}}を用いて、推薦画像が秀逸な画像の推薦に相応しくない旨を指摘出来ます。テンプレートの「理由」部分に、秀逸な画像には明確に値しない事の説明を書き加えます(可能ならば英語で)。

あなたが何故その画像を好むか、または好まないか、特に(  Supportや(  Opposeの投票をする際は簡単な理由を加えましょう。また署名(~~~~)も忘れずに。匿名投票は受け付けられません。

秀逸な画像からの除外Edit

時も経ればやがて『秀逸な画像』の基準も変わります。かつては“充分に価値に値する”と決定されたであろう画像も、その価値は普遍ではありません。ここでは「もはや『秀逸な画像』に値しない」と考えられる画像をリストアップします。リストされた画像へは、{{Keep}}   Keep 及び {{維持}}   Keep (=『秀逸な画像』に値する)、または{{Delist}}   Delist 及び {{除外}}   Oppose (=『秀逸な画像』に値しない)を投票します。

あなたが『秀逸な画像』の価値基準に値しないと考える画像があれば、除外候補として提出できます。除外したい画像の画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックスの文字列の後にコピー&ペーストします。


あなたが作成した新規除外候補のページに以下を加えます。

  • 画像の作者、投稿者等の出所情報。
  • その画像の“過去の秀逸な画像への推薦”ページへのリンク(画像ページの「リンク節」に表示されています)。
  • あなたが除外と考える理由とあなたの署名。

次に、Commons:Featured picture candidates/removalを編集し、下記の書式で作成した除外候補のページのリンクを手動で最上段に挿入します。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:除外画像名.jpg}}

秀逸な画像の候補での方針Edit

総則Edit

  1. 投票期間を終えた後、結果は推薦日時から数えて10日後(下記タイムテーブル参照)に決定します。投票期間は推薦日時から数えて9日と23時間59分です。10日、またはそれを超えた投票はカウントされません。
  2. 匿名寄稿者による推薦を歓迎します。
  3. 匿名寄稿者による議論への参加を歓迎します。
  4. 匿名寄稿者による投票はカウントされません。
  5. 推薦者票は投票へはカウントされません。支持は明示的かつ言明される必要があります。
  6. 推薦者は自身の推薦をいつでも取り下げる事が出来ます。推薦を取り下げるには "I withdraw my nomination" (推薦を取り下げます)と書くか、テンプレート {{withdraw|~~~~}} を加えます。
  7. ウィキメディア・コモンズのプロジェクトの目的は、全てのウィキメディアプロジェクト(将来的なプロジェクト含む)に於いて自由に利用可能な画像を集積するセントラル・データベースを提供することである、ということを忘れないでください。セントラル・データベースは単純にウィキメディアの保管庫と言うわけではなく、また『秀逸な画像』等のプロジェクトに応じた判断をされるべきではありません。
  8. 推薦日から数えて5日間支持を受けられなかった画像(推薦者票含まず)は候補リストから外されます。(下記タイムテーブル参照)
  9. テンプレート{{FPX}}が貼られた画像は、テンプレート{{FPX}}の適用後は推薦者以外の支持票が無い限り、48時間後に候補リストから外されます。

秀逸と除外のルールEdit

候補画像は下記必要事項に準じて秀逸な画像に認定されます。

  1. 適切なライセンス情報が添付されている。
  2. 最低5票以上の支持票を得ている。
  3. 支持:反対比率が2:1 (賛成が3分の2の過半数)以上である。
  4. 2つの同様な画像での異なったバージョンは同時に『秀逸な画像』へは認定されず、より支持票の多かった一枚を認定します。

除外ルールでは、投票期間、及びリストから外される期間は秀逸ルールと同じ期間を取ります。除外候補提出後5日間で提出者以外の   Delist   Oppose)票が得られなかった候補は、5日間ルールが適用され、候補リストから外されます。

常連ユーザーが推薦・投票の完了方法に従って、推薦投票を閉じることがあります。終了方法に関してはCommons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedを参照。

何よりも礼儀を忘れずにEdit

どうか、あなたが評価するその画像が「人の作品」であることを忘れないでください。「これはヒドイ」、「こんなのキライだ」と言ったような表現は避けましょう。もしあなたが『反対』に票を投じなければならないのなら、思いやりを忘れずに。また、あなたの話す英語は、また誰か他の人の話す英語とは同じではないでしょう。慎重に言葉を選んでください。

それでは良い評価を。そして、全てのルールは壊すことが出来るという事を忘れないでください。

関連項目Edit

目次Edit

Contents

秀逸な画像の候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Bohdan Khmelnytsky Kiev 2018 G2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2018 at 06:55:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a good idea, but taking a picture of an equestrian monument is one of the toughest tasks: the horse is usually placed in a very high position and depending on the hour of the day you will have problems with the sun that might disturb so that you can not take the subject from the right angle. Here the profile of head of the horse, which is a main part of the horse, is not visible and the result is quite an uninteresting shape where horse and rider create an amorphous figure, IMO. I like the background, though even if it looks a bit false with its pinkish tone.Paolobon140 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. The sky here is displayed naturally, without any special effect of Photoshop. It is a thin layer of clouds at sunset with uncommon color at present time. The viewpoint is really low because the square with the monument is surrounded by high buildings. This photo was published several times in the news feeds of Kiev and Ukraine, because it really attracts attention and has a free license. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it and like to support art photos --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The statue actually looks as if it was moving. I've no problem with the sky, I see that color often through my window. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Pato aguja africano (Anhinga rufa), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 46.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 22:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Amanita muscaria 2018 G01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 21:42:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Perchtoldsdorf Pfarrkirche Innenraum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 15:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Estanque, parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-24, DD 02-03 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 11:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of the watering hole looking southeast from Mestel Dam towards the granite dome of Shabeni hill (759 metres (2,490 ft)), 4.3 kilometres (2.7 mi) away on the horizon, in the vicinity of Pretoriuskop in the southwestern Kruger National Park, Mpumalanga, South Africa. The veld type is Pretoriuskop sourveld on a substrate of granite and gneiss. Various jackalberries (Diospyros mespiliformes) line the banks of the Phabeni River, a tributary of the Sabie. A party of hippos (Hippopotamus amphibius) are resting on the sandy bank near the intake. All by me, Poco2 11:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colours are quite blown out and the resevoir doesn't have IMO any special wow to it. Sorry. --Msaynevirta (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Msaynevirta Seven Pandas (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Msaynevirta. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination before I get burnt here --Poco2 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Foro Romano Musei Capitolini Roma.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 10:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Swissôtel The Stamford reflecting in the water.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 08:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Singapore
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. The only thing that bothers me a bit is the cut off box on the left but it's FP-worthy anyway. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this architecture a bit cold and corporate-authoritarian, but it's nonetheless impressive, and what I feel to be its arrogant grandeur is well-captured in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose The image did make me stop when I was scrolling through, it's that striking, but too much of it is unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Phlox paniculata 'Fujiyama' (d.j.b.) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 07:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Haukilahti marina, Espoo (October 2018).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2018 at 22:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Finland
  •   Info all by me --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very peaceful, but too much empty space in the sky and water for me to feel wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh light, strong shadows. Too early in the evening for a pleasant mirror effect. I also find the format not adapted. As Ikan says, there's too much sky and water. Perhaps a 2:1 crop would improve a bit, at least to get rid of the distracting branch at the bottom left corner -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me this is an ordinary and not very special marina photo, and there is the harsh light too. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative recropped image.


  •   Comment @Daniel Case, Basile Morin, Ikan Kekek: I recropped the image to 2:1, what do you think, is it any better? --Msaynevirta (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Still oppose It addresses the too-much-earth-and-sky issue, but not the harsh light and shadows noted by Basile (and, by reincorporation, me). To be honest even if these weren't problems it doesn't really stand out from so many other pictures of waterfronts. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Much better. I find the light normal, not harsh. What I'm still not sure about, though, is whether the remaining largely undifferentiated sky and only slightly ripply water provides sufficient eye movement to complement the nice arc. I'll live with this a little longer, but I'm liking the feeling of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Still oppose Even if the scenery is quiet and peaceful, it is counterbalanced by the hard light which creates agressive contrasts -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same as above. --Cart (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Dehnbare Helmling Mycena epipterygia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 15:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  •   Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Beautiful, but for FP, really should be sharper, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support For me the sharpness is acceptable here. I like the composition, the light, the moss in the foreground and particularly the gelatinous appearance of these mushrooms. But it seems that the picture has been downsized, measuring exactly 3,000 × 2,100 pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Basile Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Biguatinga Tomando Sol.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 15:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by & uploaded by LeonardoRamos - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is noisy; also it's kind of busy and distracting even without that being an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice but the branch is a bit too much eye-catching Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I propose a tighter crop (see note) to get rid of a large part of the darkness behind. Though I'm not sure to support because I don't really like the flashlight, I think the bird is sharp and the image worth this improvement -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:L'insurrection des vaisseaux L'America et Le Léopard (6 septembre 1790).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 10:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I think that's right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 09:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info This photo has 3rd place in WLM 2018 in France. A bit similar to this photo, which is FP. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But im not sure this is the best result you could get by such a scene: the right part is too bright, too much detailed and too much colourful. The central part, which is meant to be the main subject, is not as bright as the right part, which should be a secondary part in the composition. Vignetting and a slight darkening of the whole right part would be a great improvement to an already excellent composition with flaws about lightening.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment No added vignetting please! --Cart (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    A good vignetting would hide the evidently too much bright right part of the composition which is not intended to be the main subject but comes out clearer thn the subject. That right part is killing the whole photograph IMO,Paolobon140 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Paolobon, the entire right, up to the road edge, needs to be cropped out. I can understand what the photographer wanted to show us, what he saw, but it was more than the photograph could handle. But the church by itself could be featured. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The view is beautiful, but with all of that on the right of the church and nothing on the left, it feels unbalanced. The linked photo has a different kind of balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The edges catch the eye too much, being very contrasty and strongly sharpened, as well as being out of the mist. The vignette-to-focus-on-centre proposal is old already, with limited acceptability on a educational media repository and an outdoor scene. Anyway, the centre clouds are a little blown so drawing the eye towards them, and away from the church, wouldn't work. I think the image has been a bit over-processed, with a bit too much local contrast and sharpening (the woman's t-shirt has steps on the diagonal). I'll suggest a crop. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm surprised that I can nearly always recognize Tournasol7's pictures at first sight here and in QIC, just because they are heavily processed. I think you should try to keep everything (colors, saturation, contrasts, etc.) more natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This kind of processing is the signature of the photographer and you are admitting that its his signature: it is a big result for a photographer and a big compliment to Tournasol7. Among dozen of undistinguished pictures shown here where the only problem is wether they are enough sharp or not in the very top left pixel, this kind of images are a gift becasue they show a creative signature. Photography is also made of colour processing. I would suggest you to try to cross-process some of your pics and enjoy the result. Lookf of photographs have changed a lot in the last decades and heavy colour processing is very fashionable lately. By the way, why is black and white accepted here? Black and white is a very evident colour processing.Paolobon140 (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, actually fashion isn't a sign of individual creativity. Following the herd to get a tattoo or beard, say, is more a sign of conformance to the group than independent thinking. Fashions come and go, and an educational media repository like Commons tends to value images that stick close to reality. Anyone can take a photograph of an Italian church interior, push the Clarity/Highlights/Shadows/Sharpness sliders around with a heavy hand, and expect folk who've never seen the church to have their eyes pop. There's a place for photos that adopt a certain style, but I wouldn't want heavy colour processing to be fashionable at Commons FP. While it might be fun to look at a movie and recognise it was colour graded in a way popular for 2018, I would prefer if the photos on Commons were timeless. Back and white works for the very reason that it doesn't make any pretence to represent the scene's colour: the viewer is not tricked. The guidelines for Commons FP require that significant post-processing be documented. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Many photographers here have developed a distinct and recognizable style. I've even seen voters refer to photos as being in "Cart style". However, almost none of these photographers have relied on effects or over-processing to achieve that style. You don't need to pull out every toy in the tool box to get a signature, it has more to do about chasing a certain light, subject, angle and composition. Btw Paolobon140, since Basile is a recognized artist, I don't think he needs to be told that he can play with colors. :-) Since you don't know the people behind the signatures here, I suggest you treat users here more like your equals than someone with their first camera. When we post photos here, we sort of try to keep them in the style of the Commons project. That doesn't mean we don't know any other styles. --Cart (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bamberg Cafe Rondo am Schönleinsplatz 9201807.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 08:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for infor; this one has a 1st place in WLM 2018 in Germany. --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very delicate light. --Cart (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Travel-guide worthy (or let's try it auf Deutsch: Reiseführerwürdig). Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very rationalistic picture, as rationalistic the buidling is. Rationalism was not a big fan of trees near buildings though, and I think that tree on the left is quite "a punch in the eye":-) I wonder if there was a way to avoide the presence of the tree.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nice, but I think the highlights have been decreased too much, because the dark parts look a bit grey. HDR or selective correction would have been better -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Vanha voimalaitos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 22:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created and uploaded by TeuvoSalmenjoki - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Has a lot of elements that by themselves would work but altogether overwhelm the viewer. Perhaps at least if you cropped in from the left a little ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good management of the light colour.--Ermell (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is techically very well taken, with good balance of colours and light. Did you use a tripod? But i agree there are too many object in it, starting with those trees which are more disturbing than pleasant in my taste. The reflection is too heavy, with hese kind of compositions based on such a heavy reflection i would rather try to avoid any object which is not the main subject, the buidling.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Oleg (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 15:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:White noise - Horn loudspeakers at Brastad soccer arena.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 18:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Always wanting to explore things that are normally frowned upon, I think I've found a subject where an overcast sky actually adds to the composition. -- Cart (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Maybe a useful VI, but I don't get what you found compelling about the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support – While those horns aren't anything super gorgeous, these ordinary infrastructure elements can definitely make for a somehow interesting composition. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose An interesting idea, but I think it might have worked better if you had had just the speakers ... the tower has different forms that sort of clash with the curvilinearity and gradients of the horns. Also, you need to rename it to eliminate the superfluous "r" in "loudspearkers", and there's a bit of CA on the rims, too. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Title and CA fixed. Thanks for noticing that. --Cart (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Uhm, no. Sky is uniform grey and dull and I cannot see a subiect. And if there is a sublejct it is not enough WOW or interesting to me, IMO.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Any non-uniform sky would just make the whole thing messy. Of course the subject is the horns. As usual I make compos of everyday objects, for me their forms and colors are just as photographically interesting as art objects. I like all the shades of white in the image. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand your point ov view, but im sure you have much more WOW pics in your archive. Why choose such a difficult subject? A question might be: would you ever print this pic and hang it on your living-room wall?:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would make a rather cool canvas in a hallway or an office. I don't confine art to a living room and neither should Commons. Imagine this in the reception of a sound studio. :) It's true that I could do just easy pretty subject, but where is the fun and challange in that? The Wikimedia project needs good photos of all kinds of things not just pretty flowers, churches and birds on twigs. I chose dificult subjects because almost no-one else does. --Cart (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, this is a balanced image with a refined background. It fits perfectly in the interior of offices of certain companies. In my opinion, Cart is looking for other ways that sometimes evoke resistance. I think that's courageous.--Famberhorst (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very interesting subject, the white background is ugly in my view, and a bit depressing too -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Eternal Procession.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 02:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - Sigh. I have to agree with the criticism of the horizon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good motive but unfortunately not very well implemented technically. The sky should be darker so that the noise is not so disturbing. Besides, the horizon is quite sloping.--Ermell (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per other --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really can't see the reason for the tilted horizon. Also the merge of what I think are two photos, one of the rocks and one of the sky and lights, is not very well done. The sky is too noisy in comparison to the land. --Cart (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: - Any comment concerning merge? --Neptuul (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Image:20180819 Panorama ReutteBerge DSC00900 cut PtrQs.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 01:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by PtrQs - uploaded by PtrQs - nominated by PtrQs -- PtrQs (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PtrQs (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Evocative and beautiful. You half expect to find some vertical lines of kanji characters somewhere on this "scroll". --Cart (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is too tight for me at the bottom, I miss the valleys. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Uoaei1, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there were reasons to cut the lower 600px of the original stitch. Below the frame you see, the shadows drop and the contrast vanishes. So instead of graded silhouettes like in the peaks you only see areas with few contours. As this happens especially on the left side and there the edge of the effect looks rather sharp, I'd call it unbalanced. So I decided to crop it like this. --PtrQs (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose useless for encyclopaedia Pan Tau (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project."
FPs are not just for the encyclopedia, they are also for all the other WikiProjects (take a look at the list at the bottom of the main page) plus those we don't even know about yet, so ALL sorts of really good photos are welcome. --Cart (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My rating is my personal opinion. So don't proselytize me. Pan Tau (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok then. Thanks for teaching me a new English word: "proselytize". I didn't know that one. :) --Cart (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  Support Beautiful landscape. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1. Doesn't really work for me structurally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 & Pan Tau --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good for a web banner but format is absolutely a problem as a photograph.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, I've read that you are satisfied by 20x30 cm handouts. But in this format every picture of a full mountain range would present only some millimeters of rock and a real lot of sky above. So maybe you could spend some time and look up the definition of 'panorama'? --PtrQs (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, well, assuming that an Italian speaker like me must know what "panorama" means (and most probably a greek speaker even more) I perfectly understand that you might love this kind of format. Personally I do not appreciate this format unless is used as a web banner or printed and hanged on a wall. But still, even on a web banner or sticked on a wall i do not appreciate this photograph, I find it too panoramic, too large and not enough high. I gave my explanation which seems to be similar to others who wrote "Doesn't really work for me structurally" (i must imagine its more or less what i worte too). Techincally it is a well done work but still i dont feel to vote it as a Featured picture for the reasons i said above. I appreciate a lot the smothness of tones and the different tones. But i also find the mountain on the right too visible and dark, catching much of my attention, while in a panoramic picture i expect to let my eye go around without being captured by a single detail.Paolobon140 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Adolfo Wildt (1868-1931) Carattere fiero-Anima gentile 3 (1912).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 19:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- One of the masteripeces of sculptor Adolfo Wildt; yellowish tone is typical of Wildt's way to treat marble, I chose to divide the pic in 2 area, keeping the lower one as negative space; vignetting is natural, and given by illumination on the scenePaolobon140 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Do we really need all of the pedestal? It's dark and doesn't really add anything to the image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, in my opinion: the picture is evidently formed by 2 distinct parts: a bright golden one with the main subject at the top (eyes start looking at one object from the top, usually) and a black one at the bottom which creates a large negative space which emphasizes the top part by giving more strenghth to the sculpure and visibility. Tha lower part might even be seen as a kind of "bust" of the head, with shoulders and body. The sculpture itself is quite complicated to be framed becasue of its shape and this picture doesnt want to be a simple description of the sculpture, but wants to create a kind of atmosphere around the sculputure. No square composition was allowed here, so choice was one only. Vignetting and bottom black part area intended to focus atention on the sculpture. Paolobon140 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A "heavy" compo, like something you'd see in a Batman or Marvel album, but such a compo needs to be flawless and the cut corner on the top is the pedestal really bugs me, even if you probably aren't responsible for how the sculpture was displayed. Also technical quality is not up to what might be expected from a static shot, lots of red CA, chromatic noise and a bit too short DoF. Camera settings might not have been optimal. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I will not discuss about composition, that is the composition i chose becasue it was the one i liked the most and your taste is most respectful. Only thing id say is that the heavy composition fits the heavy expression of the face...For the quality i often have the sensation, here, that commenters are putting an over attention on the pixels. Digital photography produces large files which, when printed, become much smaller than the file itself. Many of the small details you can see at full size disappear in a normal format print. Just for information: one picture of the same set (different sculpure with different marble tones, same sculptor, but same camera settings, same place, same day and same hand of the photographer), is the cover of one quite good book by a well known editor. The editor didn't find any flaw in the file and printed it with a perfect result. When we had to print from films it was the opposite way and small flaws on the negative would look more evident in prints. A kind of photograph like this gives its best if printed at some 20x30 cm. Paolobon140 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we are much more fastidious here than most publication editors. If the technical level can be improved in post-processing or by re-shooting the photo, we would like it too be. We can overlook such things if the "wow" is so great that the situation/composition overrules the technical issues. Regarding the "heavy" compo, I never said that it was a negative thing, just commented on what kind of compo it was and as such I'd like it to be flawless for an FP. --Cart (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Btw, googling "Carattere fiero-Anima gentile" I see that the marble is a bit yellowish, but not as much as in this photo. This saturation makes it look almost waxy and not like marble. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yellow is much more stronger than you see in other pics; i think other pics are taken with those cameras that balance everything till it gets white. Wildt was famous for his yellow marbles, obtained by shining marble with urine and tobacco. This picture is very close to the original tone but the museum, in tht occasion, chose a yellowish illumination to enhance the golden tones of marble. I reproduced exactly what the human eye was seeing in that exposition. It was a choice by the light designer. In the book cover you will see a less yellow tone becasue that sculputure is less yellow itself and light was chosen whiter.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - This is one of the cases in which our tastes differ. A photo that's utterly pitch black in the lower half doesn't work for me, or at least this one doesn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition and the top of the face is not very sharp (the top is likely a bit out of focus). Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Snowflake macro photography 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 18:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Is this real? --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Real, but very heavily processed and the flake should be rotated. Charles (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - When you say it's heavily processed, do you think any of the colors were altered? I'm inclined to support but would like to read your answer (or anyone else's answer). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Snowflakes don't have any color, so the color comes from the light source which is rather pleasant here. The enthusiastic processing is from noise reduction and amplified contrast and such things. Compare with this. Although I suspect that some of the very smooth edges comes from it starting to melt a bit. There are also a lot of small bubbles on it, suggesting that some liquid is present. --Cart (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks.   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info The author hasn't been active for years so I took the liberty of rotating the flake. Please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per rotators. Thank you, Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm close to oppose this one but staying neutral because it's a difficult subject. The crop is too large IMO, with uninteresting background (like here) and a square framing would have been much better. The resolution is very small, only acceptable perhaps considering the size of a snow flake (I think a few millimeters). I also find the post-treatment too strong, making the object artificial : there are heavy dark lines at the borders that would never appear in a standard photograph. Noise reduction is also visible -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Baby Huwae, c 1963, Tati Photo Studio 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 18:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Tati Photo Studio, restored and uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I would vote to support, but are watermarks allowed in historical photos? I hope so and would like for it to remain in the photo, but I think it's important to resolve the question. Normally, no copyrights or watermarks are allowed for featured photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Gaura lindheimeri, prachtkaars. (actm) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 17:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Gaura lindheimeri, 'Whirling Butterflies' #Family Onagraceae.
  •   Info Elegant small flower between the flower buds of the Gaura lindheimeri.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support In many shots like this I would complain about the bluish whitebalance, but with these flowers and setting I think it works for the photo in a melancholy way. --Cart (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart; the bluish tint nicely counterbalances the hot pink. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment too noisy at the moment. Charles (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is very distracting and the main subject gets lost in it. A shallower dof would be better.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice square. The temperature is a bit cold but the composition is working in my view because all the colorful parts of the background are well separated in space from the main subject. Flower popping from its texture. The DoF makes the object totally in focus, including the stem and the buds -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - The plant is great but the background is so "busy" that I feel tension when looking at this photo. Maybe if you faded the background further, I might react differently. The bottom crop is a little close, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done. Background slightly blurred. Thank you.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks. That doesn't seem like a big change, but it feels different enough for me to relax. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Lauenstein Burg 9302266-Pano.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 21:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Could you possibly add more to the left? The crops feel unbalanced to me because there are many more trees to the right of the fortress than to the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done I had an inch left. Actually I didn't miss anything but with the additional piece it really looks better.--Ermell (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it as it is with the spire on rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - That edit made the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Me too. --Cart (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I want a bit more space on the top and left but OK :) --Laitche (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I know it actually is not, but it looks tilted to the right; i think due to the shape of trees.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications

File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 18:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
  •   Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is actually the back half of an unintentional slow delist and replace. After my 2015 version was recently demoted due to the discovery that its margin of promotion had been due to one now-banned user !voting twice with one of his sock accounts, I looked at it and decided against renominating it as it was since a) I'm not totally sure as it was that I would have voted for it if someone else had nominated it and b) I have learned more about editing my images since then. I also realized that some of the oppose !votes in the original had had some points.

    So, instead, I dragged out the original raw file and started from scratch. The result is an image that I would definitely support if someone else nominated it ... less brightness on the building and the clouds and thus easier on the eyes, its perspective slightly corrected, and not cropped in as much at the left so we can see a bit more of its locational context. (I would also like to thank Cart for one last tweak she suggested).

    I see this as not just a worthy candidate but a testament to how regular participation in this forum can help us grow and improve at our art. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep. The Star Trek building is definitely better than before, so here is my vote. --Cart (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lower part of the picture is quite messy. The guy on the left and the cut-off signs on the right do not belong in on the image, the lamppost on the left is not vertical. That' s no FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, to live in a world where all lampposts really are vertical. I never assume that a lamppost is perfectly vertical IRL. --Cart (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info. Of course I don't think that all the lampposts are vertical, but you can see here that the image is distorted, which is nothing unusual with the focal length used. But one could try to change that. Just because the building has no horizontals or verticals nobody is bothered by it.--Ermell (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ermell: I have cropped the image at bottom and left to eliminate those two things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That looks much better, but the guy with the camera doesn't make any sense at all.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You know, I honestly didn't realize he was there until I started working on the image again, as I'd cropped him out of the first one. And I decided this time that, given that the first one had been criticized as a little tight (or at least I remember that it was), I would give it more space on the left since the heavy building was on the right. I agree it is a question of taste and might be the sort of thing I'd object to in other images (especially since he's shooting something outside the image). But judging by the !votes here, not many other people mind. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But the guy is annoying! Charles (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, and I agree that this is a better composition than the 2015 version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite some unsharpness in the corners --Llez (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a messy composition, too many things, too many objects, too many clouds, too many colours and mainly, no depth.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice compo, great sky Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bologoe asv2018-08 img04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 14:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
  •   Info An L-class steam locomotive in operation at Bologoye-2 railway station, Tver Oblast, Russia ------ all by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice old Soviet lady! The little platform in front is a bit disturbing as it partially hides the wheels. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely a QI if that were sought, but for me it has too many distracting elements—not just the platform, but the buildings, trees and tracks, for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rich in detail. --Milseburg (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm with Daniel here. The light is also rather glary, making it unpleasant to look at. --Cart (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose platform. Charles (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor sublject and poor composition, the trains gets lost in the building in the back.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support great colours, pleasant light and nice subject. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Building behind, distracting, and cut lines at the bottom -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:M81.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 07:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Young girl smiling with teeth in sunshine.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Evocative.--Peulle (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good portrait, almost too detailed at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow, no depth, too much dof, dull light and a simple composition. This pic might have been taken enywhere in the wordl, nothing that adds that special feeling about a distant country. That prt of her right arm really look like a disturb and the tree above her hada shoud not be there. Paolobon140 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "...that special feeling about a distant country." There are no distant countries on Commons, we all depict what we have in "our own backyard" on equal terms, and the Wikimedia project is way past orientalism, thankfully. --Cart (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i dont know what Orientalism is and actually im not much interested in knowing what it means as I have spent years all over in Asia. We are commenting on a picture that you have selected to be a Featured picture. Im an italian, and when i see a close portrait of some person who seems to live on the other side of the world, id like to see what is around that person, how she is dressed, what makes her look different from the people i see around in my country, how is the world around that person. I want to see something "special", "particular", "different", i want to see a small piece of Asia in a picture. If not we are obliged to judge your pic for what it is, a very close portrait of a smiling little kid. Your choise to shoot a close portait, cutting everything which is not the face of the model (you even cut her 2 arms), and then let's judge the portrait without talking about Orientalism. Close portraits have rules, and i think you didnt follow any of those rules for a good close portait. She might be african, esquimese, american, albanese, chinese, but it remains a dull close portrait. We can then comment on the techinque of your portrait and I find it quite a dull normal portrait with no depth that anybody with a mobile phone can take. What did your photographic art or skill add? For me you didnt add anything. Should i comment on the beauty of the subject? She is not a particulr beauty in my eyes, she has an average childish siling expression which is cute but can be seen on the face of any child around the world. Should i comment on the lighting you chose? There is no lighting, there is a frontal single light (the sun) that makes a heavy shadow under her chin. Should i comment on how good this close portrait is composed? I see one tree above her hair which shouldnt be there and a large spot on the right side of the photo, just near her hear. What elese should I say? When i see a close portrait [http://www.repubblica.it/speciali/arte/2016/01/15/foto/ragazza_afgana_steve_mccurry_foto_all_asta-131322463/1/#1 i would like to see a picture like this becasue the photographer chose the model and found the way to make thta model look extraordinry. Ew are selecting Featured pictures for Commons, why should i be contented with a simple portrait? Lets try to make something better, this is what i expect personally.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not Cart's nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:The Bubble Nebula - NGC 7635 - Heic1608a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gallina de Guinea (Numida meleagris), parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-25, DD 48.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2018 at 19:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

+1 Daniel Case (talk)   Support now. 23:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Charles, Daniel, Martin:   Done --Poco2 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Cumbre dorsal - Teide.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2018 at 08:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely layers and a cloud plume in the right place. --Cart (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice shot. Charles (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It had the potentials for a good photo but in my opinion there is no subject: the picture is correctly divided in 4 areas: sky, the background mountain, the right part with clouds and a foreground with anther mountain. It is a kind of composition that might give great resutls if only one of the 4 areas contained somethng notable, but as you can see none of the 4 areas of the pic contain anything interesting to watch and contemplate. Actually one subject is missing, and the dull sky doesnt help with those few small clouds. It looks like an empty scene where no subject comes out to catch the eye of the observer.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Frozen drop.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2018 at 18:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Thanks, Daniel and Cart -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very cool  . Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like it, but surely, this is shot live and not animated, so do change the category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ooops, strike 'support' per El Grafo, I watched the video on mute and didn't realize there was music. It is totally redundant for this. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Still shaky. Second reason for refusal remains. Not excellent. --Smial (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Nocturne Op. 9, No. 2 (Chopin). Kruusamägi (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but is it free ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as long as proper credit is not given for the music, keeping in mind that there may be separate copyrights for composition, performance, recording etc.. Also, the music is cut off abruptly at the end. Personally, I would just get rid of the audio track completely. --El Grafo (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I added the information about music to the file description. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes that is good, it says which piece it is, but not who is playing or from what recording it is. How do we know the recording is free or is it the author of the video who is playing too? --Cart (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Maxim didn't remember who's piece it was, but he had checked that it was definitely in PD. I told him to upload a new version without music. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  Done No more music. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per El Grafo. There is lots of free licenced music available (cc-by-sa, artlibre...) in the WWW. Also the tripod appears to be not rock solid. --Smial (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per objections about the music. As a musician and composer, I should care about the use of recordings without permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - With the music gone, I support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Macro portrait of a housefly Musca domestica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2018 at 18:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:1858 Gustave Le Gray la batterie Royale à Brest.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2018 at 16:14:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • C’est l’une des photos de la série que Gustave Le Gray a fait dans le cadre de la visite de Napoléon III à Brest lors d’une tournée des ports français. Cette tournée a été marquante et a fait l’objet de nombreuse peintures et gravures [[1]]. À cette époque Le gray est photographe officiel du Second Empire (cf biographie). Il a du coup accès a ce site militaire, cette batterie Royale dont c’est la seule représentation (vue sous cet angle) que je connaisse. On y retrouve son style très descriptif, hérité de la mission héliographique et on peut donc observer un état des lieux de "l'art militaire" (architecture et artillerie). Le gray n’est pas seulement un pionnier de la photographie (pensée comme un art à part-entière) il est aussi un des premiers à mettre son travail au service du recensement des monuments historiques … un encyclopédiste à sa manière.
  • Please add that explanation to the description on the file's page. Also, again, please remember to sign everything you write here. --Cart (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I added information in the description --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Wie met de heele wereld wil verkeeren, moet eerst Esperanto leeren!.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2018 at 23:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  •   Info created by Centrale Esperanto Propaganda Commisie te Nijmegen - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~nmaia d 23:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ~nmaia d 23:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Interesting, worthwhile document, but I kind of feel that with the tear and dirt in the upper right quadrant, it should be digitally restored for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 06:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

秀逸除外候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Bohdan Khmelnytsky Kiev 2018 G2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2018 at 06:55:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a good idea, but taking a picture of an equestrian monument is one of the toughest tasks: the horse is usually placed in a very high position and depending on the hour of the day you will have problems with the sun that might disturb so that you can not take the subject from the right angle. Here the profile of head of the horse, which is a main part of the horse, is not visible and the result is quite an uninteresting shape where horse and rider create an amorphous figure, IMO. I like the background, though even if it looks a bit false with its pinkish tone.Paolobon140 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. The sky here is displayed naturally, without any special effect of Photoshop. It is a thin layer of clouds at sunset with uncommon color at present time. The viewpoint is really low because the square with the monument is surrounded by high buildings. This photo was published several times in the news feeds of Kiev and Ukraine, because it really attracts attention and has a free license. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it and like to support art photos --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The statue actually looks as if it was moving. I've no problem with the sky, I see that color often through my window. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Pato aguja africano (Anhinga rufa), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 46.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 22:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Amanita muscaria 2018 G01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 21:42:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Perchtoldsdorf Pfarrkirche Innenraum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 15:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Estanque, parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-24, DD 02-03 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 11:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of the watering hole looking southeast from Mestel Dam towards the granite dome of Shabeni hill (759 metres (2,490 ft)), 4.3 kilometres (2.7 mi) away on the horizon, in the vicinity of Pretoriuskop in the southwestern Kruger National Park, Mpumalanga, South Africa. The veld type is Pretoriuskop sourveld on a substrate of granite and gneiss. Various jackalberries (Diospyros mespiliformes) line the banks of the Phabeni River, a tributary of the Sabie. A party of hippos (Hippopotamus amphibius) are resting on the sandy bank near the intake. All by me, Poco2 11:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colours are quite blown out and the resevoir doesn't have IMO any special wow to it. Sorry. --Msaynevirta (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Msaynevirta Seven Pandas (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Msaynevirta. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination before I get burnt here --Poco2 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Foro Romano Musei Capitolini Roma.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 10:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Swissôtel The Stamford reflecting in the water.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 08:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Singapore
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. The only thing that bothers me a bit is the cut off box on the left but it's FP-worthy anyway. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this architecture a bit cold and corporate-authoritarian, but it's nonetheless impressive, and what I feel to be its arrogant grandeur is well-captured in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose The image did make me stop when I was scrolling through, it's that striking, but too much of it is unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Phlox paniculata 'Fujiyama' (d.j.b.) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 07:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Haukilahti marina, Espoo (October 2018).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2018 at 22:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Finland
  •   Info all by me --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very peaceful, but too much empty space in the sky and water for me to feel wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh light, strong shadows. Too early in the evening for a pleasant mirror effect. I also find the format not adapted. As Ikan says, there's too much sky and water. Perhaps a 2:1 crop would improve a bit, at least to get rid of the distracting branch at the bottom left corner -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me this is an ordinary and not very special marina photo, and there is the harsh light too. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative recropped image.


  •   Comment @Daniel Case, Basile Morin, Ikan Kekek: I recropped the image to 2:1, what do you think, is it any better? --Msaynevirta (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Still oppose It addresses the too-much-earth-and-sky issue, but not the harsh light and shadows noted by Basile (and, by reincorporation, me). To be honest even if these weren't problems it doesn't really stand out from so many other pictures of waterfronts. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Much better. I find the light normal, not harsh. What I'm still not sure about, though, is whether the remaining largely undifferentiated sky and only slightly ripply water provides sufficient eye movement to complement the nice arc. I'll live with this a little longer, but I'm liking the feeling of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Still oppose Even if the scenery is quiet and peaceful, it is counterbalanced by the hard light which creates agressive contrasts -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same as above. --Cart (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Dehnbare Helmling Mycena epipterygia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 15:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  •   Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Beautiful, but for FP, really should be sharper, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support For me the sharpness is acceptable here. I like the composition, the light, the moss in the foreground and particularly the gelatinous appearance of these mushrooms. But it seems that the picture has been downsized, measuring exactly 3,000 × 2,100 pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Basile Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Biguatinga Tomando Sol.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 15:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by & uploaded by LeonardoRamos - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is noisy; also it's kind of busy and distracting even without that being an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice but the branch is a bit too much eye-catching Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I propose a tighter crop (see note) to get rid of a large part of the darkness behind. Though I'm not sure to support because I don't really like the flashlight, I think the bird is sharp and the image worth this improvement -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:L'insurrection des vaisseaux L'America et Le Léopard (6 septembre 1790).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 10:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I think that's right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 09:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info This photo has 3rd place in WLM 2018 in France. A bit similar to this photo, which is FP. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But im not sure this is the best result you could get by such a scene: the right part is too bright, too much detailed and too much colourful. The central part, which is meant to be the main subject, is not as bright as the right part, which should be a secondary part in the composition. Vignetting and a slight darkening of the whole right part would be a great improvement to an already excellent composition with flaws about lightening.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment No added vignetting please! --Cart (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    A good vignetting would hide the evidently too much bright right part of the composition which is not intended to be the main subject but comes out clearer thn the subject. That right part is killing the whole photograph IMO,Paolobon140 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Paolobon, the entire right, up to the road edge, needs to be cropped out. I can understand what the photographer wanted to show us, what he saw, but it was more than the photograph could handle. But the church by itself could be featured. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The view is beautiful, but with all of that on the right of the church and nothing on the left, it feels unbalanced. The linked photo has a different kind of balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The edges catch the eye too much, being very contrasty and strongly sharpened, as well as being out of the mist. The vignette-to-focus-on-centre proposal is old already, with limited acceptability on a educational media repository and an outdoor scene. Anyway, the centre clouds are a little blown so drawing the eye towards them, and away from the church, wouldn't work. I think the image has been a bit over-processed, with a bit too much local contrast and sharpening (the woman's t-shirt has steps on the diagonal). I'll suggest a crop. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm surprised that I can nearly always recognize Tournasol7's pictures at first sight here and in QIC, just because they are heavily processed. I think you should try to keep everything (colors, saturation, contrasts, etc.) more natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This kind of processing is the signature of the photographer and you are admitting that its his signature: it is a big result for a photographer and a big compliment to Tournasol7. Among dozen of undistinguished pictures shown here where the only problem is wether they are enough sharp or not in the very top left pixel, this kind of images are a gift becasue they show a creative signature. Photography is also made of colour processing. I would suggest you to try to cross-process some of your pics and enjoy the result. Lookf of photographs have changed a lot in the last decades and heavy colour processing is very fashionable lately. By the way, why is black and white accepted here? Black and white is a very evident colour processing.Paolobon140 (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, actually fashion isn't a sign of individual creativity. Following the herd to get a tattoo or beard, say, is more a sign of conformance to the group than independent thinking. Fashions come and go, and an educational media repository like Commons tends to value images that stick close to reality. Anyone can take a photograph of an Italian church interior, push the Clarity/Highlights/Shadows/Sharpness sliders around with a heavy hand, and expect folk who've never seen the church to have their eyes pop. There's a place for photos that adopt a certain style, but I wouldn't want heavy colour processing to be fashionable at Commons FP. While it might be fun to look at a movie and recognise it was colour graded in a way popular for 2018, I would prefer if the photos on Commons were timeless. Back and white works for the very reason that it doesn't make any pretence to represent the scene's colour: the viewer is not tricked. The guidelines for Commons FP require that significant post-processing be documented. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Many photographers here have developed a distinct and recognizable style. I've even seen voters refer to photos as being in "Cart style". However, almost none of these photographers have relied on effects or over-processing to achieve that style. You don't need to pull out every toy in the tool box to get a signature, it has more to do about chasing a certain light, subject, angle and composition. Btw Paolobon140, since Basile is a recognized artist, I don't think he needs to be told that he can play with colors. :-) Since you don't know the people behind the signatures here, I suggest you treat users here more like your equals than someone with their first camera. When we post photos here, we sort of try to keep them in the style of the Commons project. That doesn't mean we don't know any other styles. --Cart (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bamberg Cafe Rondo am Schönleinsplatz 9201807.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 08:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for infor; this one has a 1st place in WLM 2018 in Germany. --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very delicate light. --Cart (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Travel-guide worthy (or let's try it auf Deutsch: Reiseführerwürdig). Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very rationalistic picture, as rationalistic the buidling is. Rationalism was not a big fan of trees near buildings though, and I think that tree on the left is quite "a punch in the eye":-) I wonder if there was a way to avoide the presence of the tree.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nice, but I think the highlights have been decreased too much, because the dark parts look a bit grey. HDR or selective correction would have been better -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Vanha voimalaitos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 22:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created and uploaded by TeuvoSalmenjoki - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Has a lot of elements that by themselves would work but altogether overwhelm the viewer. Perhaps at least if you cropped in from the left a little ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good management of the light colour.--Ermell (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is techically very well taken, with good balance of colours and light. Did you use a tripod? But i agree there are too many object in it, starting with those trees which are more disturbing than pleasant in my taste. The reflection is too heavy, with hese kind of compositions based on such a heavy reflection i would rather try to avoid any object which is not the main subject, the buidling.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Oleg (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 15:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:White noise - Horn loudspeakers at Brastad soccer arena.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 18:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Always wanting to explore things that are normally frowned upon, I think I've found a subject where an overcast sky actually adds to the composition. -- Cart (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Maybe a useful VI, but I don't get what you found compelling about the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support – While those horns aren't anything super gorgeous, these ordinary infrastructure elements can definitely make for a somehow interesting composition. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose An interesting idea, but I think it might have worked better if you had had just the speakers ... the tower has different forms that sort of clash with the curvilinearity and gradients of the horns. Also, you need to rename it to eliminate the superfluous "r" in "loudspearkers", and there's a bit of CA on the rims, too. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Title and CA fixed. Thanks for noticing that. --Cart (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Uhm, no. Sky is uniform grey and dull and I cannot see a subiect. And if there is a sublejct it is not enough WOW or interesting to me, IMO.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Any non-uniform sky would just make the whole thing messy. Of course the subject is the horns. As usual I make compos of everyday objects, for me their forms and colors are just as photographically interesting as art objects. I like all the shades of white in the image. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand your point ov view, but im sure you have much more WOW pics in your archive. Why choose such a difficult subject? A question might be: would you ever print this pic and hang it on your living-room wall?:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would make a rather cool canvas in a hallway or an office. I don't confine art to a living room and neither should Commons. Imagine this in the reception of a sound studio. :) It's true that I could do just easy pretty subject, but where is the fun and challange in that? The Wikimedia project needs good photos of all kinds of things not just pretty flowers, churches and birds on twigs. I chose dificult subjects because almost no-one else does. --Cart (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, this is a balanced image with a refined background. It fits perfectly in the interior of offices of certain companies. In my opinion, Cart is looking for other ways that sometimes evoke resistance. I think that's courageous.--Famberhorst (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very interesting subject, the white background is ugly in my view, and a bit depressing too -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Eternal Procession.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 02:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - Sigh. I have to agree with the criticism of the horizon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good motive but unfortunately not very well implemented technically. The sky should be darker so that the noise is not so disturbing. Besides, the horizon is quite sloping.--Ermell (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per other --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really can't see the reason for the tilted horizon. Also the merge of what I think are two photos, one of the rocks and one of the sky and lights, is not very well done. The sky is too noisy in comparison to the land. --Cart (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: - Any comment concerning merge? --Neptuul (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Image:20180819 Panorama ReutteBerge DSC00900 cut PtrQs.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 01:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by PtrQs - uploaded by PtrQs - nominated by PtrQs -- PtrQs (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PtrQs (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Evocative and beautiful. You half expect to find some vertical lines of kanji characters somewhere on this "scroll". --Cart (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is too tight for me at the bottom, I miss the valleys. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Uoaei1, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there were reasons to cut the lower 600px of the original stitch. Below the frame you see, the shadows drop and the contrast vanishes. So instead of graded silhouettes like in the peaks you only see areas with few contours. As this happens especially on the left side and there the edge of the effect looks rather sharp, I'd call it unbalanced. So I decided to crop it like this. --PtrQs (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose useless for encyclopaedia Pan Tau (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project."
FPs are not just for the encyclopedia, they are also for all the other WikiProjects (take a look at the list at the bottom of the main page) plus those we don't even know about yet, so ALL sorts of really good photos are welcome. --Cart (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My rating is my personal opinion. So don't proselytize me. Pan Tau (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok then. Thanks for teaching me a new English word: "proselytize". I didn't know that one. :) --Cart (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  Support Beautiful landscape. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1. Doesn't really work for me structurally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 & Pan Tau --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good for a web banner but format is absolutely a problem as a photograph.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, I've read that you are satisfied by 20x30 cm handouts. But in this format every picture of a full mountain range would present only some millimeters of rock and a real lot of sky above. So maybe you could spend some time and look up the definition of 'panorama'? --PtrQs (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, well, assuming that an Italian speaker like me must know what "panorama" means (and most probably a greek speaker even more) I perfectly understand that you might love this kind of format. Personally I do not appreciate this format unless is used as a web banner or printed and hanged on a wall. But still, even on a web banner or sticked on a wall i do not appreciate this photograph, I find it too panoramic, too large and not enough high. I gave my explanation which seems to be similar to others who wrote "Doesn't really work for me structurally" (i must imagine its more or less what i worte too). Techincally it is a well done work but still i dont feel to vote it as a Featured picture for the reasons i said above. I appreciate a lot the smothness of tones and the different tones. But i also find the mountain on the right too visible and dark, catching much of my attention, while in a panoramic picture i expect to let my eye go around without being captured by a single detail.Paolobon140 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Adolfo Wildt (1868-1931) Carattere fiero-Anima gentile 3 (1912).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 19:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- One of the masteripeces of sculptor Adolfo Wildt; yellowish tone is typical of Wildt's way to treat marble, I chose to divide the pic in 2 area, keeping the lower one as negative space; vignetting is natural, and given by illumination on the scenePaolobon140 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Do we really need all of the pedestal? It's dark and doesn't really add anything to the image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, in my opinion: the picture is evidently formed by 2 distinct parts: a bright golden one with the main subject at the top (eyes start looking at one object from the top, usually) and a black one at the bottom which creates a large negative space which emphasizes the top part by giving more strenghth to the sculpure and visibility. Tha lower part might even be seen as a kind of "bust" of the head, with shoulders and body. The sculpture itself is quite complicated to be framed becasue of its shape and this picture doesnt want to be a simple description of the sculpture, but wants to create a kind of atmosphere around the sculputure. No square composition was allowed here, so choice was one only. Vignetting and bottom black part area intended to focus atention on the sculpture. Paolobon140 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A "heavy" compo, like something you'd see in a Batman or Marvel album, but such a compo needs to be flawless and the cut corner on the top is the pedestal really bugs me, even if you probably aren't responsible for how the sculpture was displayed. Also technical quality is not up to what might be expected from a static shot, lots of red CA, chromatic noise and a bit too short DoF. Camera settings might not have been optimal. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I will not discuss about composition, that is the composition i chose becasue it was the one i liked the most and your taste is most respectful. Only thing id say is that the heavy composition fits the heavy expression of the face...For the quality i often have the sensation, here, that commenters are putting an over attention on the pixels. Digital photography produces large files which, when printed, become much smaller than the file itself. Many of the small details you can see at full size disappear in a normal format print. Just for information: one picture of the same set (different sculpure with different marble tones, same sculptor, but same camera settings, same place, same day and same hand of the photographer), is the cover of one quite good book by a well known editor. The editor didn't find any flaw in the file and printed it with a perfect result. When we had to print from films it was the opposite way and small flaws on the negative would look more evident in prints. A kind of photograph like this gives its best if printed at some 20x30 cm. Paolobon140 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we are much more fastidious here than most publication editors. If the technical level can be improved in post-processing or by re-shooting the photo, we would like it too be. We can overlook such things if the "wow" is so great that the situation/composition overrules the technical issues. Regarding the "heavy" compo, I never said that it was a negative thing, just commented on what kind of compo it was and as such I'd like it to be flawless for an FP. --Cart (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Btw, googling "Carattere fiero-Anima gentile" I see that the marble is a bit yellowish, but not as much as in this photo. This saturation makes it look almost waxy and not like marble. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yellow is much more stronger than you see in other pics; i think other pics are taken with those cameras that balance everything till it gets white. Wildt was famous for his yellow marbles, obtained by shining marble with urine and tobacco. This picture is very close to the original tone but the museum, in tht occasion, chose a yellowish illumination to enhance the golden tones of marble. I reproduced exactly what the human eye was seeing in that exposition. It was a choice by the light designer. In the book cover you will see a less yellow tone becasue that sculputure is less yellow itself and light was chosen whiter.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - This is one of the cases in which our tastes differ. A photo that's utterly pitch black in the lower half doesn't work for me, or at least this one doesn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition and the top of the face is not very sharp (the top is likely a bit out of focus). Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Snowflake macro photography 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 18:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Is this real? --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Real, but very heavily processed and the flake should be rotated. Charles (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - When you say it's heavily processed, do you think any of the colors were altered? I'm inclined to support but would like to read your answer (or anyone else's answer). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Snowflakes don't have any color, so the color comes from the light source which is rather pleasant here. The enthusiastic processing is from noise reduction and amplified contrast and such things. Compare with this. Although I suspect that some of the very smooth edges comes from it starting to melt a bit. There are also a lot of small bubbles on it, suggesting that some liquid is present. --Cart (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks.   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info The author hasn't been active for years so I took the liberty of rotating the flake. Please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per rotators. Thank you, Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm close to oppose this one but staying neutral because it's a difficult subject. The crop is too large IMO, with uninteresting background (like here) and a square framing would have been much better. The resolution is very small, only acceptable perhaps considering the size of a snow flake (I think a few millimeters). I also find the post-treatment too strong, making the object artificial : there are heavy dark lines at the borders that would never appear in a standard photograph. Noise reduction is also visible -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Baby Huwae, c 1963, Tati Photo Studio 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 18:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Tati Photo Studio, restored and uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I would vote to support, but are watermarks allowed in historical photos? I hope so and would like for it to remain in the photo, but I think it's important to resolve the question. Normally, no copyrights or watermarks are allowed for featured photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Gaura lindheimeri, prachtkaars. (actm) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 17:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Gaura lindheimeri, 'Whirling Butterflies' #Family Onagraceae.
  •   Info Elegant small flower between the flower buds of the Gaura lindheimeri.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support In many shots like this I would complain about the bluish whitebalance, but with these flowers and setting I think it works for the photo in a melancholy way. --Cart (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart; the bluish tint nicely counterbalances the hot pink. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment too noisy at the moment. Charles (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is very distracting and the main subject gets lost in it. A shallower dof would be better.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice square. The temperature is a bit cold but the composition is working in my view because all the colorful parts of the background are well separated in space from the main subject. Flower popping from its texture. The DoF makes the object totally in focus, including the stem and the buds -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - The plant is great but the background is so "busy" that I feel tension when looking at this photo. Maybe if you faded the background further, I might react differently. The bottom crop is a little close, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done. Background slightly blurred. Thank you.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks. That doesn't seem like a big change, but it feels different enough for me to relax. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Lauenstein Burg 9302266-Pano.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 21:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Could you possibly add more to the left? The crops feel unbalanced to me because there are many more trees to the right of the fortress than to the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done I had an inch left. Actually I didn't miss anything but with the additional piece it really looks better.--Ermell (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it as it is with the spire on rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - That edit made the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Me too. --Cart (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I want a bit more space on the top and left but OK :) --Laitche (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I know it actually is not, but it looks tilted to the right; i think due to the shape of trees.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications

File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 18:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
  •   Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is actually the back half of an unintentional slow delist and replace. After my 2015 version was recently demoted due to the discovery that its margin of promotion had been due to one now-banned user !voting twice with one of his sock accounts, I looked at it and decided against renominating it as it was since a) I'm not totally sure as it was that I would have voted for it if someone else had nominated it and b) I have learned more about editing my images since then. I also realized that some of the oppose !votes in the original had had some points.

    So, instead, I dragged out the original raw file and started from scratch. The result is an image that I would definitely support if someone else nominated it ... less brightness on the building and the clouds and thus easier on the eyes, its perspective slightly corrected, and not cropped in as much at the left so we can see a bit more of its locational context. (I would also like to thank Cart for one last tweak she suggested).

    I see this as not just a worthy candidate but a testament to how regular participation in this forum can help us grow and improve at our art. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep. The Star Trek building is definitely better than before, so here is my vote. --Cart (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lower part of the picture is quite messy. The guy on the left and the cut-off signs on the right do not belong in on the image, the lamppost on the left is not vertical. That' s no FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, to live in a world where all lampposts really are vertical. I never assume that a lamppost is perfectly vertical IRL. --Cart (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info. Of course I don't think that all the lampposts are vertical, but you can see here that the image is distorted, which is nothing unusual with the focal length used. But one could try to change that. Just because the building has no horizontals or verticals nobody is bothered by it.--Ermell (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ermell: I have cropped the image at bottom and left to eliminate those two things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That looks much better, but the guy with the camera doesn't make any sense at all.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You know, I honestly didn't realize he was there until I started working on the image again, as I'd cropped him out of the first one. And I decided this time that, given that the first one had been criticized as a little tight (or at least I remember that it was), I would give it more space on the left since the heavy building was on the right. I agree it is a question of taste and might be the sort of thing I'd object to in other images (especially since he's shooting something outside the image). But judging by the !votes here, not many other people mind. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But the guy is annoying! Charles (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, and I agree that this is a better composition than the 2015 version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite some unsharpness in the corners --Llez (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 20:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a messy composition, too many things, too many objects, too many clouds, too many colours and mainly, no depth.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice compo, great sky Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bologoe asv2018-08 img04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 14:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
  •   Info An L-class steam locomotive in operation at Bologoye-2 railway station, Tver Oblast, Russia ------ all by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice old Soviet lady! The little platform in front is a bit disturbing as it partially hides the wheels. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely a QI if that were sought, but for me it has too many distracting elements—not just the platform, but the buildings, trees and tracks, for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rich in detail. --Milseburg (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm with Daniel here. The light is also rather glary, making it unpleasant to look at. --Cart (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose platform. Charles (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor sublject and poor composition, the trains gets lost in the building in the back.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support great colours, pleasant light and nice subject. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Building behind, distracting, and cut lines at the bottom -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:M81.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 07:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Young girl smiling with teeth in sunshine.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Evocative.--Peulle (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good portrait, almost too detailed at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow, no depth, too much dof, dull light and a simple composition. This pic might have been taken enywhere in the wordl, nothing that adds that special feeling about a distant country. That prt of her right arm really look like a disturb and the tree above her hada shoud not be there. Paolobon140 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "...that special feeling about a distant country." There are no distant countries on Commons, we all depict what we have in "our own backyard" on equal terms, and the Wikimedia project is way past orientalism, thankfully. --Cart (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i dont know what Orientalism is and actually im not much interested in knowing what it means as I have spent years all over in Asia. We are commenting on a picture that you have selected to be a Featured picture. Im an italian, and when i see a close portrait of some person who seems to live on the other side of the world, id like to see what is around that person, how she is dressed, what makes her look different from the people i see around in my country, how is the world around that person. I want to see something "special", "particular", "different", i want to see a small piece of Asia in a picture. If not we are obliged to judge your pic for what it is, a very close portrait of a smiling little kid. Your choise to shoot a close portait, cutting everything which is not the face of the model (you even cut her 2 arms), and then let's judge the portrait without talking about Orientalism. Close portraits have rules, and i think you didnt follow any of those rules for a good close portait. She might be african, esquimese, american, albanese, chinese, but it remains a dull close portrait. We can then comment on the techinque of your portrait and I find it quite a dull normal portrait with no depth that anybody with a mobile phone can take. What did your photographic art or skill add? For me you didnt add anything. Should i comment on the beauty of the subject? She is not a particulr beauty in my eyes, she has an average childish siling expression which is cute but can be seen on the face of any child around the world. Should i comment on the lighting you chose? There is no lighting, there is a frontal single light (the sun) that makes a heavy shadow under her chin. Should i comment on how good this close portrait is composed? I see one tree above her hair which shouldnt be there and a large spot on the right side of the photo, just near her hear. What elese should I say? When i see a close portrait [http://www.repubblica.it/speciali/arte/2016/01/15/foto/ragazza_afgana_steve_mccurry_foto_all_asta-131322463/1/#1 i would like to see a picture like this becasue the photographer chose the model and found the way to make thta model look extraordinry. Ew are selecting Featured pictures for Commons, why should i be contented with a simple portrait? Lets try to make something better, this is what i expect personally.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not Cart's nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:The Bubble Nebula - NGC 7635 - Heic1608a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gallina de Guinea (Numida meleagris), parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-25, DD 48.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2018 at 19:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

+1 Daniel Case (talk)   Support now. 23:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Charles, Daniel, Martin:   Done --Poco2 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Cumbre dorsal - Teide.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2018 at 08:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely layers and a cloud plume in the right place. --Cart (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice shot. Charles (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It had the potentials for a good photo but in my opinion there is no subject: the picture is correctly divided in 4 areas: sky, the background mountain, the right part with clouds and a foreground with anther mountain. It is a kind of composition that might give great resutls if only one of the 4 areas contained somethng notable, but as you can see none of the 4 areas of the pic contain anything interesting to watch and contemplate. Actually one subject is missing, and the dull sky doesnt help with those few small clouds. It looks like an empty scene where no subject comes out to catch the eye of the observer.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Frozen drop.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2018 at 18:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Thanks, Daniel and Cart -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very cool  . Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like it, but surely, this is shot live and not animated, so do change the category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ooops, strike 'support' per El Grafo, I watched the video on mute and didn't realize there was music. It is totally redundant for this. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)